How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 1
Nov/02/09 09:38 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
I always get suspicious when someone makes an argument with the statement of "it's been proven to work", "the link is proven", or, alternatively, they state the negative. Typically, I hear these kinds of statements from the pseudoscience pushing group. Many of us have debunked the "there is a proven link between vaccines and autism." Or that any number of alternative medicine (CAM) therapies don't actually work. In fact, science rarely uses the term "proven", because the scientific method is not a system to make a definitive answer on any question–scientists always leave open the possibility of an alternative hypothesis that can be tested. If the alternate hypothesis can be supported through experimentation, then it can replace the original one. When an alternative medicine or junk science supporter states "it has been proven" then you can be assured that conclusion is unsupported by scientific research.
The scientific method is an unbiased systematic approach to answer questions about the natural world, including medicine. It has several basic steps:
Science is an evidence-based systematic analysis without inherent opinion or emotion. In other words, it is a method to cut through opinions and anecdotal observations, so that one can have some reasonable expectation that a medicine or device will work as planned. CAM fails to utilize scientific method. Supporters of CAM usually perform experiments to confirm the hypothesis, never to contradict it. It is the fundamental principle of falsifiability, that is, that if a hypothesis is false, it can be shown in experimentation that allows science to have an open mind about the world. When you speak to a believer of CAM, they almost never assume that their treatment cannot work.
It's interesting that CAM and pseudoscience start out with observations of the real world. For example, CAM therapies sometimes work, not because of the therapies themselves, but because humans get better. CAM cold therapies, like Zicam, probably have no therapeutic benefit. You always recover from a cold, and randomly, you might recover faster or slower. It's not science, it's anecdotes.
Part 2 of this discussion will be out later today. It will discuss how to tell what is "proven" or what is science.
By Michael W Simpson
The scientific method is an unbiased systematic approach to answer questions about the natural world, including medicine. It has several basic steps:
- Define the question–this could be anything from "does this compound have an effect on this disease?" or "how does this disease progress".
- Observations–this is the subjective part of science. Do we observe trends or anomalies? Does a physician notice that ever patient from a town or neighborhood exhibit the same disease? A lot of science arises from observations of the natural world. One of the most famous stories in the early history of medicine is when Edward Jenner observed that milkmaids rarely were infected by smallpox because they were exposed to cowpox, a less virulent disease.
- Hypothesis–taking the observations, create a hypothesis that can be tested. In Jenner's case, he hypothesized that exposure to cowpox immunized individuals to small pox.
- Experiment–simply, the scientist then tests the hypothesis with experiments and collect the data. The experiments are not designed to solely validate the hypothesis but may also attempt to contradict it.
- Analyze–this requires statistics to determine the significance or results.
- Interpret–sometimes the data leads to a revision of the hypothesis, which means the scientist has to return to steps 3-6. Or it confirms or supports the hypothesis, which means the researcher can move to Step 7.
- Publish results–in today's scientific community, the results require peer-review, which subjects the data, analysis and interpretation to the scrutiny of other scientists before publication. This is a critical step that ensures that the results can stand up to criticism. It does not prove anything, but it does support the hypothesis.
- Retesting–Many times the research is repeated by others, or the hypothesis may be slightly revised with additional data. Science is not static, it constantly revises theories as more data is gathered. For this reason alone, science is not an absolute, it is constantly seeking new data.
Science is an evidence-based systematic analysis without inherent opinion or emotion. In other words, it is a method to cut through opinions and anecdotal observations, so that one can have some reasonable expectation that a medicine or device will work as planned. CAM fails to utilize scientific method. Supporters of CAM usually perform experiments to confirm the hypothesis, never to contradict it. It is the fundamental principle of falsifiability, that is, that if a hypothesis is false, it can be shown in experimentation that allows science to have an open mind about the world. When you speak to a believer of CAM, they almost never assume that their treatment cannot work.
It's interesting that CAM and pseudoscience start out with observations of the real world. For example, CAM therapies sometimes work, not because of the therapies themselves, but because humans get better. CAM cold therapies, like Zicam, probably have no therapeutic benefit. You always recover from a cold, and randomly, you might recover faster or slower. It's not science, it's anecdotes.
Part 2 of this discussion will be out later today. It will discuss how to tell what is "proven" or what is science.
By Michael W Simpson